Johan twitter tease- Protectorate Fix!

[Bouchart]

Would've been nice if it said how much LD they get when you seize land. "This will anger them" states the obvious, but nothing else.

Probably the same as it is currently for protectorates, +5% per point of development.

 

[Comrade Kalle]

Probably the same as it is currently for protectorates, +5% per point of development.

Hmm, didn't know about that. I never actually used protectorates. 5% LD per dev seems like a lot though, but maybe that's just me. Still would've been nice if the interface showed the amount of LD gained.

 

[Bouchart]

Hmm, didn't know about that. I never actually used protectorates. 5% LD per dev seems like a lot though, but maybe that's just me. Still would've been nice if the interface showed the amount of LD gained.

It'll show you the LD gain when you select their province. At least that's how it works currently and I don't imagine that changing.

 

[Sfan]

Vassals tend to go bankrupt. Paradox's fix is to allow the overlord to take tradepower from them. Brilliant move

Apart from that, I am a bit salty about this. This is obviously a nice addition compared to the post 1.18 situation, but this is clearly worst than what it used to be before. Protectorates were a very strong tool that had its nice use and historical accurracy. The relation of France with Iroquois or of England with several indian states at some point was not a relation of vassal. There were unique mechanics associated to this that fitted an oversea play well, while vassals fitted playing near you. Merging the two of them will lead to some less historical and less diverse playstyle imo and focus game even more towards blobbing than playing the tradegame as the only optimal playstyle.

 

[bbqftw]

rip the dream of Vatican-Russia-Prussia with 30% extra morale and 10% extra discipline compared to regular Prussia

 

[ELPhantomII]

Not too much of a fan of this change, to be honest. I liked preserving ROTW nations as protectorates while only absorbing Europe.

 

[El_Cid_]

Lazy 'fix' imho

 

[Golladan]

Wait. So vassals won't get you over relationlimit? Or do they?

The question was if they counted against relationship limits. The answer was yes.

So they will get you over relationlimit.

 

[IndianSummer]

Well it would be totally fine if they merged protectorates with vassals AND gave the ability for vassals to convert trade power (probably in exchange for liberty desire). Which is a quite usefull trade related thing. However taken into account a relation slot limit and the way vassals worked post 1.18 (economical hazard and liberty desire spike) this only would be benefitial if:
1.) They fixed vassals Liberty desire and economical conditions.
2.) Allow tributary states like Ming has in DMP to be able to transfer trade power AND be able for everyone (or at least everyone who is either Merchant republic or Empire rank (although I must admit I urge lower then empire rank)

if not:
* Downgrade to both merchant republics, trade oriented states and downgrade post 1.18 for everyone who liked WC.

 

[Furleppe]

inb4 paradox merged vassals with protectorates just to introduce subject's autonomy level from HoI4 in some next expansion/patch (that could work out actually)

 

[zukodark]

I'm not sure if I like this. Protectorates were different enough to warrant being separate. Though it should have gotten some changes, as well as giving you more control on whether a subject becomes a protectorate or a vassal.

 

[Silver Wizard]

inb4 paradox merged vassals with protectorates just to introduce subject's autonomy level from HoI4 in some next expansion/patch (that could work out actually)

Care to explain that to a non-HoI4-player?

 

[Logist]

In HOI4 subjects go from integrated puppet, puppet, colony, dominion. Each level gives the subject greater autonomy so what ensues is a kind of tug of war, with the overlord trying to push the subject down and the subject trying to pull itself up

 

[Red Death]

So, what Johan claimed in that tweet is not correct in my opinion. They did not "merge" Protectorates and vassals, they removed protectorates from the game and added some of their interactions to vassals. Protectorates currently play a clearly seperate role, and have different mechanics. Things that are missed with this change:

1. Tech bonus for the protectorate.
2. Protectorates not being called into wars that are not designated as colonial wars.
3. Protectorates transferring 50% trade power base, which becomes 100% with the interaction, I'm guessing we'll get 50% less now.
4. Protectorates are able to start their own wars.
5. You can make protectorates out of far larger countries than vassals, which is balanced by the fact that we can not integrate them like vassals.
6. Protectorates do not cost relationship slots.

@Johan I am concerned by this after the removal of the Exploration and Expansion CB's. I really like the direction the Ages mechanic has been moving in, your response to feedback has been great. But please, I am begging you, stop removing mechanics that should have been fixed, could have been fixed.

You want to hear one possibility? Instead of basing the Protectorate threshold on tech penalty, base it on difference in tech levels. Tech penalties fluctuate suddenly, and as a result Protectorate kept breaking free. However, the nett result of Institutions tends to be that certain countries lag behind in tech, and that lasts across several cycles of institutions. Just increase liberty desire as protectorates get closer to your tech level, and make high LD remove the benefits they give you.

There's just one quick possibility, I just hope you reconsider this.

 

[Mafiabrett]

Not liking this "fix".. If you can even call it that. Couldn't fix so they removed them. Shameful.

Protectorates are different from normal vassals because of the huge differences in culture and religion, that they couldn't exactly be treated like a normal vassal.

My biggest concern is historical accuracy. Portugal, France and England had DOZENS of Protectorates across Americas, Africa, and India. But if they cost a diplo point to maintain.. How the hell are we suppose to recreate British Raj? 25/7 relations.. What a joke. Also with how LD works nowadays, it sounds impossible having just 1 "vassal/protectorate" control all of India for you without them being constantly at 100%

 

[Spartakusbund]

Vassals tend to go bankrupt. Paradox's fix is to allow the overlord to take tradepower from them. Brilliant move

Apart from that, I am a bit salty about this. This is obviously a nice addition compared to the post 1.18 situation, but this is clearly worst than what it used to be before. Protectorates were a very strong tool that had its nice use and historical accurracy. The relation of France with Iroquois or of England with several indian states at some point was not a relation of vassal. There were unique mechanics associated to this that fitted an oversea play well, while vassals fitted playing near you. Merging the two of them will lead to some less historical and less diverse playstyle imo and focus game even more towards blobbing than playing the tradegame as the only optimal playstyle.

Minor correction: The Iroquois were a Dutch and then English ally, not a French one. They were one of the few tribes to side with the English in the French and Indian War (Seven Years War to Euros).

 

[Dakka]

Fixing Protectorates by removing them is a lame fix. I'd much rather have overseas puppets

 

[alexti]

So they fixed protectorates by...removing them?

Apparently... But maybe unlike vassals they will not be going bankrupt? There is also a question of who will participate in what wars

 

[Sfan]

Minor correction: The Iroquois were a Dutch and then English ally, not a French one. They were one of the few tribes to side with the English in the French and Indian War (Seven Years War to Euros).

You're right, my memory was messy. Hurons/Wyandot were the main french protectorates here.

 

[Incompetent]

So they fixed protectorates by...removing them?

Ok, I don't think there's a zero-DIP CB for making protectorates anyways, so not a huge loss I think.

They also unwittingly fixed a protectorate exploit by doing this.

No great loss as of 1.19, but straight-up scrapping a major feature because it doesn't currently work is a pretty major decision. Maybe it's the right one in this case, but I'll be curious to hear from the devs why their original reasons for introducing protectorates no longer apply. Protectorates were broken by 1.18/1.19, but they could have been fixed (e.g. by grandfathering Protectorate status, and adding more CBs for forcing vassalage/protectorate).

The deeper issue with subjects at the moment I think is that the system of diplomatic upkeep is too primitive. Subjects that occupy diplo slots tend not to be worth it unless they are huge to start with (i.e. when you score a PU on a major) or are set up to enable the whole feed land/diploannex business (in other words, you're not permanently tying down a slot because you'll eventually consume the subject). Subjects that don't occupy diplo slots tend to be overpowered unless they're made non-functional somehow (e.g. protectorates in 1.19) or tightly restricted in scope/quantity (e.g. Colonial Nations, Trade Cities).

What I think is needed instead is a more flexible 'diplomatic capacity' system that isn't based just on the number of countries you have relations with, but the power of those countries and the depth of the relations. Then it could actually make sense to have a realistic sphere of minor satellites around a major country, instead of just a few force-fed vassals and major PUs (diplo slot scenario), or a massive area of assorted balkanised countries that have been indiscriminately 'subjugated' at no cost to the overlord beyond the initial subjugation (no diplo slot scenario).